Process Monitoring and Measurement - AS9100 Clause 8.2.3

[sideoiler]

OK, we just finished out Re-Cert for Rev C and one of our findings was the fact that we do not show evidence for M&M of all the processes listed in our QAM. I thought this was going to be an issue, so prior to the audit I identified our 6 main processes and informed the auditor that I was focusing on getting all 6 main processes data M&M working effectively 100% before I jumped to the others listed in our Interaction of Process chart. I was informed by the auditor that we were required to show M&M for all processes, and that focusing on the 6 main that were identified does not equal conformance to section 8.2.3. Now as some may know from previous threads, I walked into a 2/3 complete system without any background or knowledge in the ISO/AS requirements / standards, and with that it is taking me some time to research and modify our QMS, striving for compliance to the basic requirements. I'm starting to realize that the previous QA Manager was trying to build a system way more elaborate than needed to be (a lot of extra unnecessary procedures and documents). We are a small job shop with less than 25 employees, where personnel are required to wear multiple hats, and currently there are 24 procedures in our QAM. Trying to get these all in compliance to 8.2.3 with in 30days is going to be a real daunting task...!
My question is, can I re-define our processes and only list the 6 main processes I identified, or am I stuck with the current set of processes listed in our QAM, and now forced to show M&M for all 24...

Regards
Chris

 

[AndyN]

Re: Process Monitoring and Measurement AS9100

Hi Chris - seems too much to me. Take it up with your CB's technical management before you do ANYTHING else.

 

[Kronos147]

Re: Process Monitoring and Measurement AS9100

My question is, can I re-define our processes and only list the 6 main processes I identified, or am I stuck with the current set of processes listed in our QAM, and now forced to show M&M for all 24...

Regards
Chris

It's your system. Re-define your 6 processes and move on. The auditor will try to tell you you have more, and that you should assess sub-processes, etc. Remind them (gently) that it is your system, and to show you in AS9100 says there must be a certain number of processes.

In terms of M&M for sub-processes, again, ask them to show you the clear requirement. My recollection is a lot of that stuff is actually in AS9101. I don't know about you, but the cert on my wall says AS9100, not AS9101.

I think Receiving inspection is a main process for us. I can't think of how to measure it. So I have purchasing\receiving inspection as one process and I measure vendor OTD as a M & M. The auditor says he thinks it is a separate process. I told him they are related, and I will not invent something to measure that process, so it is part of a larger process I measure.

The auditor can have his opinion that it should be separate (as do I), but the need for measuring IMHO should be a decision of the organization, not SAE. If keeping the facility clean and safe is a process, how do you measure? Days without an accident? White glove tests?

Busy work..... I don't know about you, but I am not on this planet in the universe to satisfy an auditor with all of their personal baggage and opinions of how to run a business. I know I give this speech each audit about the P & L statement. "AS9100 0.1 The adoption of a QMS... strategic decision made of an organization." I point out that that decision exists in the very front of the standard, and that no other section really talks about the dollars and cents of the business. If an auditor thinks that an AS9100 allows them to assess or audit our financials, I explain to them how absolutely wrong they are. When ever an audit treads on finances, I invite the auditor to justify their actions before proceeding.

I really would like it if SAE concentrated on updating and maintaining their specifications instead of trying to figure out more busy work for Quality departments to do. One example, on page 17 AS9100 Rev. C states "internet sales." "Internet" is a proper noun and needs to be capitalized. How does that mistake go through a committee? Where is their corrective action?

Eric

 

[sideoiler]

Re: Process Monitoring and Measurement AS9100

It's your system. Re-define your 6 processes and move on. The auditor will try to tell you you have more, and that you should assess sub-processes, etc. Remind them (gently) that it is your system, and to show you in AS9100 says there must be a certain number of processes.

In terms of M&M for sub-processes, again, ask them to show you the clear requirement. My recollection is a lot of that stuff is actually in AS9101. I don't know about you, but the cert on my wall says AS9100, not AS9101.

I think Receiving inspection is a main process for us. I can't think of how to measure it. So I have purchasing\receiving inspection as one process and I measure vendor OTD as a M & M. The auditor says he thinks it is a separate process. I told him they are related, and I will not invent something to measure that process, so it is part of a larger process I measure.

The auditor can have his opinion that it should be separate (as do I), but the need for measuring IMHO should be a decision of the organization, not SAE. If keeping the facility clean and safe is a process, how do you measure? Days without an accident? White glove tests?

Busy work..... I don't know about you, but I am not on this planet in the universe to satisfy an auditor with all of their personal baggage and opinions of how to run a business. I know I give this speech each audit about the P & L statement. "AS9100 0.1 The adoption of a QMS... strategic decision made of an organization." I point out that that decision exists in the very front of the standard, and that no other section really talks about the dollars and cents of the business. If an auditor thinks that an AS9100 allows them to assess or audit our financials, I explain to them how absolutely wrong they are. When ever an audit treads on finances, I invite the auditor to justify their actions before proceeding.

I really would like it if SAE concentrated on updating and maintaining their specifications instead of trying to figure out more busy work for Quality departments to do. One example, on page 17 AS9100 Rev. C states "internet sales." "Internet" is a proper noun and needs to be capitalized. How does that mistake go through a committee? Where is their corrective action?

Eric

Thanks for the Info Eric, this helps out a lot...!